Paramount and States Defend Antitrust Settlement Against Senator Booker's Objections

Paramount Pictures and a coalition of 12 state attorneys general filed responses on Monday to objections raised by Sen. Cory Booker regarding their antitrust consent decree tied to Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros. Discovery. The parties argued that the settlement was thoroughly negotiated, includes enforceable safeguards, and should not be subjected to a separate public-interest review.

Paramount’s lawyers said the decree eliminates the risk of reduced theatrical releases after the merger and provides a guaranteed pipeline of new films each year for exhibitors and the broader industry. They noted that the five-year term of the agreement reflects the rapidly evolving nature of the film and television market, adding that a longer term could hinder the combined company’s ability to compete as consumer demand and technology change.

The state attorneys general echoed this view, stating that the five-year duration balances the need to preserve current competition with the possibility of future oversight, and avoids forcing Warner Bros. to seek another merger partner.

Sen. Booker’s objection, filed last Thursday, contended that the consent decree does not go far enough to address anti-competitive harms and expires after five years, leaving the market unprotected thereafter. He also raised concerns about an “editorial independence board” that would oversee CNN and CBS News, noting that editorial oversight was not part of the states’ original complaint and that Paramount would appoint the board’s members.

Paramount’s attorneys responded that the board was designed to operate independently and efficiently to avoid any perception of government control, and that the decree governs the board’s structure, not its speech, thereby posing no First Amendment issues. The states argued that any editorial principles set by the board would stem from private conduct, not court adjudication.

Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin had previously ordered the parties to answer Booker’s letter. Amicus briefs from the Block the Merger coalition and the League of United Latin American Citizens were also filed, presenting additional objections to the settlement.